Uh-huh. Right. Let's say you bought a PC in 1999. You would have paid a total of somewhere near $150 for the OS itself and for upgrades.
Now, if you had bought a Mac, you could have spent around $400 for upgrades [OS X, free upgrade to 10.1, paid upgrade to Jaguar, paid upgrade to Panther].
If you had bought Red Hat, it would have cost you $150 or so yearly subscriptions to be able to easily access their patching mechanisms.
If you had bought OS/2, I am laughing at you.
If you had acquired a free Linux distro, it would have been free.
So my point is basically this: Inflated prices? Come on. I'm tired of this shit. Developing software isn't cheap, and there are free alternatives. What do these lawsuits solve? Suing Microsoft isn't going to make software any cheaper when you can already get it for free, and Microsoft is the cheapest when it comes to commercial [i.e. non-Linux] software.